Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin opened a can of worms yesterday afternoon after the news hit that a double bombing occurred near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. She did this in response to the lefts argument on the lack of coverage in the Gosnell murder trial. The left has bent over backwards to say that Gosnell is local story and didn’t warrant national coverage.

I actually was having a back and forth with someone on twitter over the weekend about this very topic, I asked her if the name Casey Anthony rang a bell, and also asked her to google the name Jodi Arias and see how many hits she gets. Her response to me was only that she doesn’t waste her time engaging “antis”. Well when you consider that this argument cannot be defended in any shape or form. We have a long history as a country of giving criminal trials loads of media coverage, OJ and Charles Manson just to name two more. It is a justification and a very poor one at that.

Was this in poor taste? Yes, obviously it was. But, there is truth in the point that she was trying to make. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for 8 murders, seven of which were newborn babies who had their spinal cords cuts. He committed acts of absolute barbarism, there is no other way to describe what he did. The acts of Jeffrey Dahmer were put over the airwaves on a regular basis, and that too was a “local trial”. There is one reason and one reason only that the Gosnell trial has not been widely reported, it is about abortion. A sacred “right” to most people on the left. If more people heard that this type of things are happening in this country on the scale that they are happening we just may have a “national discussion” on abortion rights. The media have decided to protect that over doing their jobs.

If people hear this story, they just may put political pressure on state governments to more closely monitor abortion clinics. If people hear this story they will ask themselves why were the complaints against this man ignored for so long? If people hear this story they will ask how a clinic that was right out in the open and run by a man who was considered a good man in his community was allowed to run for so long. If people hear this story they just may ask themselves why they support legal abortion. If people hear the story of the baby that was screaming before being murdered they may just question the mantra of the left that abortion is not used as a form of birth control. If people hear the joke reportedly made by Gosnell that one of the babies was large enough to walk him to the bus stop, they just may to look inside themselves and ask why this allowed to happen in this country.

People may just start to question the usual memes you are told about abortion. Legal, safe, and rare. One of the doctors that the prosecution put on the stand as an “expert” on abortion said he has performed 40,000 abortions during his 33 year practice. There is nothing rare about that number. That is a number that is hard to wrap your head around. There is nothing safe about what Gosnell and his goons did. Nor can this be considered “healthcare”, another one of the things that left trots out when talking about this topic.

People will have to ask themselves about the racial overtones to this story. Gosnell, a black man, treated his white suburban “patients” differently and better than the minority poorer counterparts. People may start to realize that abortion is actually big business in this country. There is loads of money to be made. There are people out there who profit at the hands of women who are making very difficult choices. People may actually take a look at the documentary made about this case where women describe how they were told by Gosnell that abortion was a normal thing, ain’t no thing. Have two, have five across your lifetime. What’s the diff? They will hear the women who were victims of Gosnell and how he isn’t being tried for things that he has done to most of them.

Again was this poor taste? Yes, but only due to the timing. But the bar was set last week by the left. Apparently the “right” to abortion is more important than giving the people of this country the truth about abortion in this country. If we start asking questions, they are afraid of the answers that some will come up with.

“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.

This comment was reported a full day before Rush made his comments on Bane, the bad guy in the upcoming Batman movie. Of course the people on the left that are reporting this are leaving out this detail as well as taking Rush’s comment out of context. He outright says that there are people out there who are not very well-informed will make the connection when the hear name Bain Capitol. And let’s be honest here, there are many stupid people out there; sad but true.

Obviously I have not seen the new movie as it has not been released yet. But I did see Dark Knight, and that was a story of good versus evil. It attempted to make people to think about what you would do if you pushed to your limits and beyond by forces that are evil. Would you go for revenge or would you do the Christian thing and forgive? Not that it put it in a Christian context as such in the movie, but the premise remains the same. This movie has been talked about as an extension of those themes.

Rush was responding to these comments as well as to liberal bloggers who made the connection. The movie was written well before Romney was the nominee and Bane was a past character being brought back. So there was never any connection intended. But that didn’t stop the left from saying so. But all of a sudden Rush is a paranoid idiot when he discussed the left making the comparison.

“We ran clips of Mitt Romney in Cornwall, Pennsylvania, talking about his trip to a WaWa, well, the RNC and the campaign both reached out to us saying that Romney had more to say about that visit — about federal bureaucracy and innovation in the private sector. We didn’t get a chance to play that, so here it is now.”

Andrea Mitchell on her and MSNBC’s creative editing of Gov. Romney’s comments yesterday.

Didn’t get a chance to play it, huh. That is what they are going with. I suppose that is their story and they are sticking with it.

“I believe his father was very much involved in it and did condone it. The New York Times did a pre-emptive strike. But, I’m not holding it against his son. Tom has been fair and open. Ever since he’s owned the Cubs, he’s been reaching out.”

Jesse Jackson on the campaign to smear Joe Ricketts. Ricketts is a Romney supporter and has funded a Super-Pac to further the cause of Romney being elected president in November.

How is this man a “man of God”? Further, how is The New York Times still in business?

Nothing to see here folks, just move along. The right is just paranoid idiots for thinking that there is a liberal bias in the media.

Anyone who suffered through our POTUS’ autobiography (now located in the fiction department of your local bookstore) and read about his New York girlfriend now knows that this was more of a composite creation, a merger of multiple women to create the woman in the pages. Now he did acknowledge that some people were composites and the reason he cites is their personal privacy. Indeed. .So private, they can’t be identified. He should give lessons to other agencies that thrive on secrecy. This is how you do it.

Given that she is a composite, one must ask, what is the author trying to say by using this tool? Via Politico:

“In Dreams from My Father, Obama chose to emphasize a racial chasm that unavoidably separated him from the woman he described as his New York girlfriend,” Maraniss writes, offering a passage from the book in which they go to see a play by a black playwright:

One night I took her to see a new play by a black playwright. It was a very angry play, but very funny. Typical black American humor. The audience was mostly black, and everybody was laughing and clapping and hollering like they were in church. After the play was over, my friend started talking about why black people were so angry all the time. I said it was a matter of remembering—nobody asks why Jews remember the Holocaust, I think I said—and she said that’s different, and I said it wasn’t, and she said that anger was just a dead end. We had a big fight, right in front of the theater. When we got back to the car she started crying. She couldn’t be black, she said. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. She could only be herself, and wasn’t that enough.

There is the authenticity of the nature of the arguement with this person. He asserts. She disagrees. He asserts more. End of arguement. Seems like the “I won” approach to things. But she’s also a device to allow him to posit that the anger and the remembering of that anger and note the curious lack of detail. We don’t know the playwrite or the play or the theatre so we can’t know how mainstream or radical this humor that he posits is typical, is. We’re left as always, to fill in the blanks and have to trust the narrator’s opinion and reporting of the things as they were. If this is composite, how are we to know that anything in this landscape is anything but sand, shadows of multiple experiences swirled together to create a POV that advances an agenda? We can’t.

One could ask, how many other fictional but based on real people and events moments are in his tedious self genuflecting tome but that would be fruitless since the press and those in a position to discover the man behind the curtain have shown themselves to suffer from an appauling lack of curiosity. It’s not likely to change much as we might hope.

So I suggest a new title for the book: Never let the truth ruin a good story.

The big question is why is the President admitting to this now? Is it because Jim Treacher and Weazel Zippers and even some at Politico amongst others, have actually read his book and now can begin the rebuttal of the 2008 campaign and its aftermath? (They’re looking for those pesky things called facts). Is this a preemptive attempt to dissarm any future “I ate dog” type scandals between now and the election that would tarnish the glowy Obama is like better than Superman-Jesus-Champaign-and-Caviar-Einstein+awesome awesomeness type image? I suspect not.

This is about elections. How to top the purple prose of the prior cammpaign and reenergize the Obama fainting zombies of the past?

Write and launch a new book…or have someone else do it, with things that weren’t in the first two…how to get people to read it? Admit that some of what was written wasn’t 100% factually are of accurate…not truthfully speaking accurate….and allow the lure of mystery, of getting the intimate details of the real person do the rest. They’ll buy it. And whatever you put in to explain why you didn’t tell the truth in the last two books, they’ll buy that too…because they want this Cool-ade President, who looks great on a cover of Teen Beat…I’m sorry, Newsweek.

Expect more attempts to create an aw shucks type humility it wasn’t all true but hey it’s all in good fun and aren’t I cool and wonderful narrative by the media through November. He will recraft himself and recast himself more times than Lady Gaga and Madonna combined (icky thought) and if he can’t, expect the lapdogs in the press to create in Romney or any other Republican or anyone who would vote Republican as the visual and mental image of evil incarnate worse than Satan times infinity with a dash of pure ignorance to add to the spite. Not only are they evil, they’re stupid and evil. You can’t let them win…

Not far from reality for possible Liberal bumper stickers:

Republicans….Romney….now with 20% more evil for 2012.

or Romney…Elected…the reason the Mayans were right.

Know that we will get hammered over and over again with a double dog dare to prove we’re not racist and that it wasn’t just trying to hang out with the cool kid and make history but that we really BELIEVED…and if we really BELIEVE….then we have to give him a second term. Clap your hands three times and say I do believe taxes promote and create jobs and growth. I do I do I do.

So be prepared.

It is inconceivable to these folks that there are people out there in this land who oppose them on principle and not out of hatred of “the other.” as has been floated in recent newscasts. It’s coming. We shall become a composite of all the left hates, rather than our own selves in the narrative.

Why?

It’s much easier to hate and love composites than real people who are often more than their political affiliation or orientation or racial or economic background. It’s much easier to target and destroy straw men and demagouge your opponents than to wrestle with real flesh and bone arguements and counter proposals. And if we’ve learned anything from our real flesh and bones President and his daydreamy virtual version of himself in print, it’s that whatever else this man is, there is a laziness about his intellect. He expects people to follow though he lead. He expects to win by simply asserting his opinion.

The reaction to the little snip about the President feasting on alternative canine cuisine has been nothing short of cathartic for countless Americans on either side of the political spectrum. For three years, we have suffered from at least half the nation holding its breath and restraining from the least hint of satire or humor against the sitting commander-in-chief for fear of appearing less than reverential to his awesomeness. The other half has been tepid about even making the slightest quip for fear of being labeled ugly things for daring to speak ill of the President.

We cannot function as a democracy if we hold our leaders and officials in too much awe or if we cannot properly gadfly chastise them for their foibles and excesses by pointing them out as foibles and excesses. We simply cannot give the state the fear and awe we owe God, nor should we surrender to the state, that power to deflate the egos with laughter. Freedom of speech must be exercised, and it cannot be properly done if the nation either fears to speak or cannot bring itself to engage in critical thinking for fear of giving comfort to the other side of the political aisle.

Fortunately, we have bloggers and alternative media and Mark Steyn and Rush and others who are only too willing to sharpen their wits on this subject, but the dog controversy allowed the common plebeian to engage in some time-honored quips against the POTUS, both healthy and good for the electorate to remember that it can do.

Twitchy has been collecting the best bon mots and Jim Treacher lead the charge to note the disconnect. But I want to consider the more important revelation of this little bit from the President’s biography. Why is it important now? Because we are in an election year and the story is not that the President ate dog, but that the President ate dog, talked about it in his biography which he touted and promoted and which the media used to sculpt a narrative about him leading up to the 2008 elections and which they hope to repackage now. Unfortunately, 3 1/2 years of the nation going out with the man on what started as blind dates has lead to some folks actually reading and digesting both what he has said and what he has done and discovering….they more they know this President, the better they like their dogs….and not in a gastronomical sense.

I don’t care that the President ate dog. I care that the press are his lap-dogs still. They might not care that he ate dog either, but they might be a bit more circumspect about being his lap pets now that they know what could happen if they get out of line.

I don’t care that the President ate dog. I do care that he’s spent 5 Trillion dollars in 3 1/2 years, which may mean the government has to start taxing us in dog years to meet its obligations.

I don’t care that the President consumed dog. I do care that we still have an unemployment rate of over 8.2 and that’s with all the hard and soft numbers manipulated to put the best spin on it. Saying that it would have been worse if we hadn’t spent 5 Trillion….that dog won’t hunt.

I don’t care that the President ate dog, is eating dog or will eat dog. What he eats is irrelevant. I do care that he spends a lot of my collected tax money letting his wife lecture me on what I should feed my children. To me, that type of chutzpah should earn him a night in the dog house.

The President’s past repasts hold no bearing on my opinion of his poor management of our country, our resources, the enforcement of our laws, promotion and protection of our principles or stewardship of our liberties and traditions and sacred institutions. He could eat fluffy bunnies and baby seals and it wouldn’t change my opinion. He dogged doing his job if his job was to improve the economy, increase our security and safeguard and cherish our nation and its values at home and abroad. He and his wife hot dogged on our dime for three and a half years with nary a peep from the media about any of their perpetual indulgences, both lavish and absurd. He treated any opposition as though they had drowned puppies for voicing even the most modest of proposals that ran counter to his opinion of what should be done. To the American people, he said “Heel.” To those who object to paying higher taxes on an ever decreasing return of liberties protected and worth while services provided, “Let them eat dog food.” To the millions of faithful Catholics, he put us in the dog house with a leash and said, “Sit. Stay. Roll Over. Play dead.” while I spay and neuter your religious institutions and teachings to suit my agenda.

So I welcome the mockery, the jokes and the willingness to even begin to notice that this is merely a man. I hope the trend continues. Cry Havok and let slip the dogs of politics!

Lastly, let me say, again, I do not care that he ate the dog. It does not bear weight. It is nothing. What I do care about is our country. What I do hope is that the American people are sobering up on the hair of the dog that bit them, or rather, the aires of the man that bit dog, and they’re discovering, they don’t much like the taste left in their mouths.

Don’t think we need to use Alinsky tactics, think we just need to be willing to speak truth, use grace and humor and point out those pesky things called facts. I don’t want a society that is dedicated to scorched earth dialogues or rather diatribes. We simply need to be honest and open and willing to use our own wit and knowledge and not buy into the hype or partisan labels that are used to paint those who oppose us as either the enemy or the devil. We’re all Americans. This is a battle of ideals and ideas and if we cannot win without becoming like that which we rightly and justly find objectionable, then we have already lost.

The death of Trayvon Martin is still in the headlines and getting a great deal of coverage on the cable news shows. I personally watch very little television, but when I do turn on CNN or MSNBC this is a major topic. New polling is out that shows a racial divide on how you look at the case. Many whites, myself among them, feel that this has been politicized by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. Now, I will admit anytime that Rev. Al gets involved in something I am more than just a tad suspicious. See, I grew up outside of New York City and I remember the Tawana Brawley Case. A very sad story of young teenaged girl who made accusations of rape at the hands of white attackers. The longer it when on the more of the circus it became. Brawley came from an abused background and had a step-father who was literally a killer and a mother who had abused her in the past for running away. The racial strife that besieged the city during this incident is well-remembered by the people who had to live with it once this story left the news. While Sharpton was successfully sued, he didn’t pay the monetary damages, people paid it for him. We then can move onto the Duke LaCrosse players. Rev. Al tried to destroy these young men’s lives based on a lie. When there is a big spotlight that he can climb into, he never misses the opportunity. He is nothing more than a race hustler and a con man. How this man continues to have any creditability is beyond my comprehension. Al Sharpton has blood on his hands.

I have been on record as being disgusted about how some one the right have decided to put Trayvon on trial. This doesn’t belong in the court of public opinion. This case is moving along in the justice system. More slowly than many people would like, but nonetheless it is moving along.

There are many things that we don’t know about this case. What does the coroner’s report say about where the bullet entered Trayvon’s body. They can tell what angle the gun was held at and how close the gun was to his body when it went off. Did Trayvon have any defensive wounds, did he have Zimmerman’s DNA under his fingernails, and did he have any other injuries beside the gunshot? Where was Trayvon’s body in relation to Zimmerman’s car? Where was Trayvon spotted in comparison to the store and his dad’s home? All of these things will help bolster or help destroy Zimmerman’s statement of events that led to the shooting. None of these things have been made public, so we have no way of knowing what evidence the state has and what they don’t. Zimmerman has said that Trayvon went for his gun. Is his fingerprints on the gun or the holster? If so, game over; Zimmerman will be a free man. Rightfully so, in my opinion. That will be a clear-cut case of self-defense.

I have nothing but sympathy for the parents of Trayvon. They buried their child. Let me say that again, they buried their child. That is a pain that no person should have to go through. No matter the circumstances, it is one of the most painful things that anyone will endure. They want justice done in the name of their son. A perfectly understandable thing. Any parent would want a full accounting of what happened to their child and how they died. I am even willing to cut the woman some slack about getting the trademarks. She has a very good attorney who I am sure told her to do this. Lets be honest here, people would have tried to make money off her son’s death and this prevents people from profiting off her pain and loss.

What I find so troubling is how this boy’s death is being used and politicized. The family made an appearance on Capitol Hill in regards to Stand Your Ground laws. That is a state issue and has nothing to do with the federal government. But people have decided to use this death to further their anti-gun agenda. Stand Your Ground Laws isn’t really a gun law. It says that you can use up to deadly force to protect yourself even off your own property. You can do that in any number of ways that don’t include a gun. Some people are well-trained in martial arts and could end another’s life with their bare hands. You could use a knife if you happen to have one, a tire iron if you are on the side of the road changing a tire and some one tries to attack you. The law isn’t designed to be about guns, it is designed to allow people who are being threatened with imminent danger to protect themselves. But of course the anti-gun lobby will use anything that they can to limit the constitutional rights of gun owners.

We also see cries of racism. There is zero proof that Zimmerman is a racist. Zero. The people who are perpetuating this should be hanging their heads in shame (Rev. Al). Racism is a very serious charge and it should not be made lightly. There is word on the 911 call that you can’t make out. Somehow this has turned into the word “coon”. When is the last time you heard a person use that word to describe a black person? That is not something that is part of the everyday conversation about race in this country. When you make claims of racism that have little to no basis in fact, you are taking away from the true claims of racism. I have heard one person go as far as to say that Zimmerman’s tutoring of underprivileged people was actually proof that he is a racist. He did it to prove his superiority or something like that.

The Congressional Black Congress is not going to be outdone by Rev. Al, so they have decided to enter a resolution to honor the life of the young slain teen and it also calls for a repeal of the stand your ground laws. Oddly, one of the people who signed onto the resolution is Congresswoman Frederica Wilson who helped pass the law in the Florida legislator. Oh, the irony and how it is not being reported that this law passed unopposed.

The media bias in this case is well documented. NBC has admitted to “editing” the 911 call. Apparently that happened in the control room. Uh, huh. They purposely reported this case as a white on black hate crime. They have done everything in their power to convict Zimmerman, to heck with the facts; or more precisely the lack thereof. They have led to some of this uneven polling that we are seeing. They have taken an unfortunate set of circumstances that we don’t have all the facts about and turned it into political theater. A very sad commentary on how the view their jobs as unbiased reporters of facts. They are losing even the bare threads of journalistic integrity that they had left. Especially when you consider Al Sharpton is allowed to lead rallies then report on them during his show. While he is opinion and should be given a little more leeway, he has been allowed to use that platform to push a point a view about a criminal matter.

Rev. Al says it is people on the right who have decided that Zimmerman is not guilty. I don’t believe that to be true. I think most on the right feel that they don’t have enough facts to say what did or did not happen and we would like to see what the special prosecutor has to say about the available evidence.

I have heard on interview with Trayvon’s mother. She won’t accept anything but a conviction. Of course she is still in mourning and dealing with her grief. I can’t imagine that Al Sharpton will accept it if the prosecutors come back and say that the evidence shows that Zimmerman acted within the law and no charges will be brought. I know some who will not accept it either. At least at this point. They have made up their minds. They ignore the fact that there is a witness that backs up Zimmerman’s claims. Trayvon was on top of him punching him. There are wounds seen on him in the video that released. There was tape on his nose showing that their was some sort of injury. To me the only way that Zimmerman should have felt reasonably in danger was if Trayvon did go for his gun. If not, he was not justified in shooting him.

I have come to the conclusion that at the end of the day we will find that both Zimmerman and Trayvon both made some bad choices. Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and locked the door once he knew the police were coming. Trayvon should have either ran to his dad’s or called 911 when he was made uncomfortable once he realized that some strange man was following him. If either of them had done these things, Trayvon would still be alive today.

As to your opinion that “…the only way Zimmerman should have felt reasonably in danger was if Trayvon did go for his gun.”, I disagree. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, banging his head onto the ground – or a concrete sidewalk – how much of that physical punishment does a person have to take before being reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury? How much pain? How much potential serious bodily injury is required? Must a person in that situation wait until they feel their skull fracture before they’re entitled to kill in their own defense? Why do you suppose that one of the life lessons which used to be imparted to kids – at least in the working-class white world I lived in – was “Don’t start a fist fight with a man who has a gun.”? Take a guess. Because precisely this will happen to you, regardless of race, regardless of time of day or night, regardless of anything other than if you are beating up a man (or woman) who has a gun, they will shoot and kill you. Bad choices? Yes, I agree with that part, however, the producing cause of Martin being shot was his physical attack on Zimmerman. Not conservative racism; there is a live witness to has told the police that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the sidewalk. How many times does a person have to be hit before you belive they’re entitled to kill in self-defense?

Dittos Ike ! “Must a person ……. feel their skull fracture before they`re entitled to kill in their own defense ?” This seems to be much the same rationale behind the protection of and the laws against harming grizzly bears. Apparently, the bear`s defenders believe you must have your head in the bear`s mouth and feel the pressure of the bite into you skull, or have already lost an arm or other appendage before you can shoot to defend yourself !

I say, HORSE MANURE !! No animal is worth a hair or fingernail of a human ! No criminal or attacker is worth dying for. The attacker certainly doesn`t care for your rights; a home invader gave up his rights as soon as he crossed the curb ! Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 !

If criminals could come to reasonably expect a person to defend himself, likely with deadly force, much violent crime would be prevented by the fear of dying themselves in the process of committing a crime. A whole lot of second thoughts !

he knew that the police were coming. On top of that his injuries were not severe enough that they required him to seek medical attention outside of what was being done at the scene. It is well known that this man had anger management issues. It could very well be that he reacted in anger more than fear of his life. Again, we have to wait and see what the medical reports have to say about his injuries. From what little we can glean from the video (which is not much) his injuries looked relatively superficial.

He was a part of the neighborhood watch and was protecting his neighbors and their homes. He knew the police were coming; yes and do you suppose that was anything he considered, while his head was being pounded into the ground – or concrete? Would you have thought, “Oh, the cops are coming, so I won’t do anything”? You are ignoring the question. The question is: how much physical injury must a person suffer before being legally – or morally, if you prefer – justified in killing their assailant? His injuries are ‘relatively’ superficial because he shot and killed his attacker. From what legal source comes your implicit idea that there is some threshold of inflicted injury required before the use of deadly force is legally permitted?? Put yourself in Zimmerman’s position: you’ve been punched in the face and knocked down by someone who you strongly suspect of being a burglar who is looking for somewhere to burgle; he is – right now – pounding the concrete sidewalk with your head; you scream and yell for help, but no one answers or comes to help. Are you going to tell me that you would simply lay there and be beaten to death – or to whatever degree would satisfy Martin – without raising a hand to defend yourself? Suppose that one of the hypothesized events was occurring: that Martin was attempting to take your gun out. Does that change your opinion? And even if true, does it matter that he had anger management issues? Of what significance is that? Having served in the Vietnam War for three years, I can tell you that in life-and-death situations, anger is a virtue, not a disease – as it appears to have become here in these ‘modern’ times. No, it seems plain, based on the publicly-released information from law enforcement that Martin attacked Zimmerman, was beating his head against a sidewalk – perhaps was trying to take his gun, maybe not – Zimmerman was yelling for help and got none. So, he took out his gun and shot the man who was attacking him. Good outcome? Of course not, but the fault is Martin’s, not Zimmerman’s, based on the available evidence that has been publicly released. There is no requirement in the law that a person being beaten wait until some certain amount of damage is done; the requirement is that that person be reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death. Having one’s head bashed into the sidewalk repeatedly, after having been punched in the face and knocked down would seem to create that fear in any reasonable person.

You are assuming that Zimmerman is telling the whole truth about what happened. Yes Trayvon at some point was on top of him – According to one witness. According to another that was not the case. Do you think that if you start a fight with someone and they end up getting the better of you during that fight that you get to kill them? For all you know that is what happened. You can’t say who threw the first punch. No one saw it.

There is a woman being interviewed right now as I am writing this saying that she believes the cries she heard came from Trayvon. She also believes that they were on the grass the entire time of the fight. She was on the phone with 911 when she heard the shot.

You have chosen to believe Zimmerman’s story in total, without the police reports of the physical evidence you are making assumptions of facts that may or may not exist. You don’t know where the body was found in relation to the car, in relation to the sidewalk, and many other things.

To say that Zimmerman acted within the law with the scant evidence that is available is irresponsible. Just as irresponsible as Rev. Al saying that he was shot in cold blood because he was black.

I know that death was avoidable. Both of them could have made different choices that night. Whether it is criminal or not, no one can reasonably say with the evidence that has been released thus far. Only two people know what really happened and one is dead.

I have not reached any final conclusion in this case, for precisely the reasons you list, summarized as ‘we haven’t heard the evidence yet’. I am arguing with your statement that Martin had to be reaching for Zimmerman’s gun before Zimmerman would have been justified in shooting him. (That is, by the way, clearly not the law in any jurisdiction that I’m familiar with.) I would point out that you also appear to believe any claim contrary to Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. You assume, without any evidence at all, that Zimmerman started a fight with Martin. On the question of who threw the first punch, since the police report that Zimmerman had a broken nose, blood on his face and some minor injury to the back of his head, it seems more likely than not that Martin caught him by surprise with a fist to his face and followed up as that one witness described. But you’re correct that a final decision must wait on hearing the evidence, in court. I am handicapped in these cases by my education, training and experience: in addition to combat duty in Vietnam, I am a retired court reporter and attorney who defended criminal defendants, so I have notion of what the law is in such cases as well as first-hand knowledge of what fighting for my life is like. I say again that my argument is against your notion that Zimmerman needed more justification to shoot Martin than what some of the witnesses are saying and what some of the physical evidence supports. There is no legal requirement to have some specific degree of injury, only that the person shooting has a reasonable fear of the imminent infliction of death or serious bodily injury. You have written that more is needed and it is with that assertion that I argue. Not with “who did what to who” or “who’s guilty and who’s innocent”.

There are things about Zimmerman’s story that make no sense. The body was found face down. Which means he had to have fallen forward after being shot. Which would lead one to believe that he fell on top of Zimmerman. That gives me pause about his story. Another thing that gives me pause about his story is that he said he was attacked from behind. The police said he had grass stains on his clothing on his back. If he was in the street walking back to his car, attacked from behind wouldn’t he have fallen to the point where his head was in the grass and his back on the concrete? Again, we don’t know if there is blood on the concrete or not. What I am saying is that his story doesn’t add up that it is the complete truth. I also don’t think if he started the altercation, which is possible. There are now two or three witnesses that say that is true. If true, I don’t see how self defense becomes an issue. If I were on a jury and someone started a fight then killed the person and claimed self defense, I would have to convict.

I also do take issue with imminent threat when you know the police are coming. Head wounds tend to be very bloody, for whatever reason the scalp bleeds a great deal. His clothes don’t appear to be that bloody. The little evidence we have doesn’t back up his story of self defense to me. I would need to know more.

I beleive that some of the most damning evidence against Zimmerman may be where the bullet entered Trayvon and the trajectory of the bullet. If the bullet entered Trayvon’s back, then Zimmerman is lying about being on the bottom as they struggled. It also means he could have avoided deadly force by continuing astride Trayvon’s body until tthe police arrived. I think Zmmerman, having successfully interrupted a burglary in process in the neighborhood already, wanted to play “hero-cop” for which he is not qualified. He could not have made a citizen’s arrest under the facts with no evidence to support him except a vague suspicion. I dislike both Rev. Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for their sensationalism and divisive tactics, but I do believe there was racial profiling in this case: Young black men were perpetrators in four of the last eight burglaries in the neighborhood; Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because of this (Would he have targeted young white men? – I doubt it); therefore, he did not see Trayvon as an individual because of his race, despite his altruism toward black children in given situations. Finally, this case would not have gotten as far as it has in the court system, were it not for the court of public opinion. I wonder if Zimmerman will invoke the 5th Amendment?

Cindy, Zimmerman won’t have to plead the 5th if criminal charges are brought, he is under no obligation to testify. Although one would think in a case where you are using self defense it would be better that you do.
I am not sure I will go as far as to say racial profiling. I grew up in an all white town. We had a very small police force and truth be told they didn’t do much as it really is a sleepy little town where little happens. But if you were a person of color driving through there late at night they would follow you. I asked one of the cops one day (they used to come to the Friendly’s we hung out at). He told me that it wasn’t racist, it was risk assessment. I didn’t really buy it at the time, but as I have gotten older I see what they were saying. They knew they didn’t live there, so what are they doing driving around late at night? They also followed people in old beat up cars because this is an affluent town and most people didn’t have older cars. I am sure in most cases it was totally innocent, but I would be willing to be dollars to doughnuts that by doing that they saved my home or one of my neighbors from being robbed at least some of the time. (And I am not saying because they are people of color, just that they were people who had no business being there late at night.) They didn’t pull people over and give tickets for no reason, just would follow them until they crossed over into the next town. If the break-ins were being committed by young black males (I am not saying this was the case, I don’t know) and you see a young black male that you have not seen before then yes you would look at that person with doubt if you are trying to play super cop. Color is also a descriptor. It doesn’t always involve racial profiling. But you and I agree on the hero cop thing. Something he was obviously woefully unprepared for. I think an experienced, well trained cop would have had a different outcome even if Zimmerman is telling the truth. Most cops carry taser’s which are not usually deadly.

Maybe you are correct about getting the special prosecutor assigned. I would like to think that a plea to the governor and AG Bondi would have yielded the same result without all this hoopla. But I may be being naive on that count. We will never know now.

Given the state of our economy, who can afford college tuition these days? As such, as a public service, I offer the following template to new and upcoming leftists journalism majors who want to gain instant credibility with the establishment mainstream media as thoughtful hard-hitting provocative investigators who speak truth to power.

When interviewing a Republican acting like a Republican, begin any interview with a boilerplate standard that immediately calls into question…everything. Here are a few samples:

Format#1 Mr. So an So of the GOP, you’ve marched in lockstep with your party for this very controversial policy. Is this the result of some payback for secret CEOS who bankrolled your campaign or did you fall prey to the fringe elements of the right?

Format #2 Ms. So and So of the Republican Party, in stating your opposition to the Democratic plan to cure disease, end death and promote flowers, ponies and swimming pools for everyone, you’ve clearly gone against the wishes of a large number of the American people. How can you live with yourself?

Format #3 Mr. So and Mrs. So of the Tea Party, your ideals have been declared by those like me who are of superior intellect because they think like me, to be dangerous, immoral, fattening and capable of giving every man, woman and child bad dreams for the rest of their days. So, will you change your minds?

Next, interrupt any attempt at seriously addressing the issues from a non Liberal point of view by declaring that the person being interviewed is:

1)ignoring the question (Uncooperative)

2) not answering the question (Non Responsive)

3) untruthful in the answer given (Disingenuous)

4) incorrect in the answer given (Misguided or Ignorant of the Facts)

Should the interviewed person persist in giving an answer that cannot be entirely dismissed out of hand because it happens to inconveniently fit the reality, you needn’t give the speaker full credence. An arched eyebrow while listening, a quizzical look as they finish, a “We’ll see.” or equally patronizing lead into your final thoughts, “Holding fast to his religious convictions…” or “Having a religious devotion to his ideals…” can help minimize the impact of such a legislator. Mention that elections are coming or if they aren’t, try to throw in the phrase “dogmatic certitude.” It scares people.

Next, remember to tag whomever you are interviewing with the proper praise or damnation. A simple outline is sketched below:

When interviewing a Republican acting like a RINO, remember to say “Despite being with the GOP…” or tout the courage of her convictions and then state how the person in question is breaking from their party ranks.

When interviewing a Democrat being a Democrat, stress the uphill struggle, the need for reform and add a personal story that echoes the rightness of the cause. Break out the purple pen and go wild.

When interviewing a Democrat being a DINO….wait…those exist?

To finish your writing/interviewing/journalism skills, hone your spleen into a precision instrument of destruction. Allow no snark to go unspoken. No insult, no matter how outrageous, how cruel, distorted or absurd is sufficient if you believe your cause is just. Recommended repeated readings of the transcripts from all of Keith Olberman and The View if you need pointers.

Practice portraying political figures you disagree with as worse than leprosy, car accidents, drowned puppies and Satan combined. Remind your viewers/readers/followers that in your opinion, which being a paid opinion means it is one that counts, there is no genuine, earnest, honest, hopeful or good reason that anyone could possibly belong to the Republican or Tea Party, and that all people of good character who might happen to find themselves aligned with the GOP are either misguided ignorant quasi fanatical masses or confederate veteran reenacters harboring hateful impulses and self-denying sexual feelings.

Finally, remember, the other side’s sacred cows are your hamburger. As we have already discounted the feelings and thoughts and motivations of the opposition, you need not worry about being injurious to the national dialogue, or about adding value when you can heap tons of bile and get rich, famous and even more influential by being the most committed person to the virtual destruction of all non Democratic leaders, voters, policy and proposals. Rank up a kill total on bills, personalities or the grass roots movement that supports your opposition with a well turned insult and the job opportunities even in this economy, will come in abundance.

You decide, I’m only partly joking, but already we are bracing for the full-blown campaign. She’s still more popular than he is so why wouldn’t they put her in play. And the press around here will cover for her.

Dana clearly wants us to stop all this complaining over pesky things like an unexplained mission in Libya, the skyrocketing debt/deficit spending, 5$ gas and unemployment that remains at over 9%. If only these peasants would recognize how great a grace it is to have him at the nation’s helm.

We’ve heard this purple prose before, Obama as sort of and then actually a God, Obama as the chosen one, as the healer of the nation and indeed the world, as the (Insert glorious praise here) who suffers tragically from the fact that some of us don’t get him because we’re too stupid. We’re the idiots who have the unmitigated gall to want lower taxes and think spending more than we have in perpetuity is not a smart fiscal policy for any entity, let alone a nation that wants to remain free. But we’re the ones who are not serious.

We don’t understand his nuancedness; we don’t live in the high theoretical world of our commander-in-chief where we can pontificate about living within our means doing important things while spending hand over fist (6.85 million per minute) and jetting from DC to Chicago to New York for a taping with Oprah and then three fundraisers.

Hell, we don’t buy the right cars or eat the right foods. We’re like those awkward teens that just don’t get how to act in high school, or Eliza Dolittle before Henry Higgins has showered her with his gifts. We’re not smartity smart like Sir Smartness and his knights of the Post, Times and MSM who know so much better. If we were as smartity smart, we’d ponder the way our POTUS ponders, we’d decide as our POTUS decides. We’d agree with the POTUS if he chose Pepsi over Coke, if he favored butter over oil, and paper over plastic. We just need to have more Faith! We need to believe as Krugman and Dana obviously believe, that we need to spend more, legislate more, and that all our ills stem from anything other than current fiscal policy.

If we just rolled over and TRUSTED Him with our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor, Utopia would emerge from our President’s head fully formed. And all we have to do is read Dana Milbanks and like him, BELIEVE. that with a bit of…Faith…trust, (all our money) and pixie dust…

MSNBC’s boyish news reader with the bowl haircut, Rachel Maddow, made no effort to hide her pomposity when she said this on her show on February 17, 2011: “’I’m here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually. Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.”

“I am not kidding. I’m quoting their own version of the Congressional Budget Office, the state’s own nonpartisan ‘assess the state’s finances’ agency. That agency said the month that the new Republican governor of Wisconsin was sworn in, last month, that the state was on track to have a $120 million budget surplus this year. So, then why exactly does Wisconsin look like this right now?”

Rachel Maddow has done it again. Remember when she fell hook-line-and-sinker for the fake news story that Sarah Palin was calling for an “American-led invasion of Egypt to protect North America?” Maddow said, “This is not Sarah Palin’s idea. This is what someone is suggesting for Sarah Palin.”

She cited a memorandum prepared by Robert Lang, director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau but failed to note that it outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy—$174 million alone—and the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

Politifact.com became curious about the claims by Maddow and madman Ed Schultz and did some digging. You can read their findings here. They call her claims false. I say she’s lying. A bogus fairytale designed to gin up the union goons. Too harsh? Meh.

Hey Comcast execs, what do you think about your clueless primetime crew?

Politico‘s Andy Barr tries to stir up some drama on the right, accusing Rick Santorum of attacking Sarah Palin in the interview below. Santorum responded with an unambiguous, and accurate, “This article is garbage.” But Barr stands by his distorted reading, hoping, I guess, that no one will actually watch the video:

Muzzammil “Mo” Hassan chopped off his wife’s head, and then claimed it was because she’d been spousally abusing him. This was not in Yemen or Waziristan but in Buffalo. Despite the chutzpah (if he’ll forgive the expression) of his defense, yesterday the jury took less than an hour to find him guilty of murder.

This is FABULOUS NEWS ! Well done jury, and extra points for ruling so quickly !

I hope CAIR takes this as a Cold Wet Soapy Greasy Dishrag-of-Reality-Slap to the face !! Our Constitution leaves no room for sharia law ! Islam`s barbaric teachings are anathema to the American experiment !

I’ve been following this case too, and I posted a video of some of the prosecution summation here. “Mo” Hussan first tried the “she humiliated me” defense, then he tried “the rest of you are all Islamophobes” defense, until he finally settled on the “300-pound abused husband with 2 hunting knives forced to defend himself from a skinny wife armed with a bag of clean socks (his) and a store receipt.” I’m sorry I missed the Mark Steyn analysis.

The AP and the usual haters are soiling themselves collectively, crowing that the evil, wicked, dispicable Sarah Palin took a hairdresser with her on her recent trip to Haiti. She was visiting the area as part of the humanitarian effort by Rev. Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse. Instead of highlighting the good work being done there, AP chooses instead to show its backside, ginning up a scandal where there is none.

The same photographer that took the picture above, also took this picture.

Notice the young woman, second from the right. Notice her clothing, scarf and hairstyle. Compare it to the first picture. Isn’t that the same woman, the one fixing Palin’s hair? But wait … most of America should recognize this young woman by now … it’s Bristol, Sarah’s daughter. Suddenly you see the first picture in a different light, don’t you? Instead of a hairstylist, it’s a daughter securing a pin on her mother’s head.

Nothing is too much of a stretch for the PalinH8rs. Shame on you. And just like MSNBC, it’s no wonder your credibility is shot.

If they can’t bring themselves to name the eeevilSarah Palin (because, after all, how many conservatives read Time) then the TEA Party would be a good choice. Just in the interest of their retaining a shred of journalistic integrity. Or they too may be sold for a dollar.

I am surprised Meggie Mac didn’t nominate herself. I am going to have to cast my vote for Barack Obama, he’s had such a rough year and all. How long has it been since someone handed him a prize anyway, he’s overdue. /

Seriously, I would have to think about it some more. In addition to the names mentioned here already, I would consider Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio possibly. I have to say that of all the candidates I actually met, I loved Pat Toomey but he didn’t get the national attention or do as much to influence public awakening. On a one-on-one basis, he struck me as the warmest and most sincere man you could hope for. You’d never pick that up from his television appearances though.

I was bummed I didn’t get to actually get to shake Sarah Palin’s hand but her star power is really something to see first hand. No doubt about it she really shakes up the national conversation too. They’d never nominate her, especially with Meggie Mac speaking for the right (what a joke). Credit where credit is due – she did pick the Tea Party and Beck. Both are good choices.

We did have an amazing number of wonderful people come forward this year.

I was surprised too Meggie had the wisdom for those picks.

I wish she would go get a real job instead of trading off her dad’s success. Dissing Christine O’Donnell who has actually had the guts to run for office I thought was particularly nasty on Meggie’s part.

More. Well, well. The NY Times The Caucus. According to them this is what was cut from the show due to the president boring on, uh, time constraints:

The interview went longer than Mr. Stewart expected – so long, in fact, that the show’s producers decided to cut out the original introduction Mr. Stewart taped, which include a riff of him fiddling with a pen and drumming his fingers on the table while making the president wait, and his introduction of Mr. Obama as “White House chairman of the council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee’s boss.’’ A spokeswoman for the show said it was the first time the show consisted of a single interview.

Even nastier stuff. How interesting. What will Stewart do to motivate the vote at his Saturday rally?

Thanks for linking. I feel like I am going to drown this week I am so busy.

What do you do when you’re not cool anymore? I guess Obama’s answer is to hang out with those ultra cool progressive bloggers. I would love to see a transcript from the think-tank meeting that came up with the “Obama meets with bloggers” game plan. If these are the supposed smart people, I will stick with being a stupid racist.

The Democratically controlled Congress has deemed as passed a 1.12 Trillion dollar budget with no budget attached for 2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37893 and Paul Krugman has explained that the only reason we’re not awash in good fortune is the idiots who have bought into the idea that trippling the debt in 18 months is somehow a bad thing are not investing.

No really.

He even calls it the Myth of Austerity. And I thought all those struggling with jobs or finding their costs of living going up or feeling anxious about the future and taxes and our prosperity was based on facts like the looming tax hikes, the ever-increasing entitlements and debt and ever-increasing size of local, state and federal government. It was all just in my silly woman’s head.

Apparently because we don’t believe Krugman’s theories or Keynesian economics, we’re all just stupid lemmings not to believe that priming the pump a’la stimulus bills will bring about a recovery, (the fact that it hasn’t is a mere detail). Given my apparent ignorance, I have to ask this simple question of true believers.

At what point will the government have spent enough money to have us arrive at Utopia? At what point will the primed pump gush forth its bounty the way oil is currently surging into the gulf? At what point will you be able to tell us, “See. See! And You thought we were headed towards bankruptcy and massive inflation and ever spiraling worse debt!”

What are the markers, the indicators of your success? When will they show up? Why will they show up? At the moment, all I see is you scolding us for not believing because in our own simple hum drum lives if we spend three times what we make, we eventually have those bills come due and we wind up in huge trouble. Do you live your lives this way, floating massive debt and having economic growth as a result? Show me the money.

Show me the country, the past studies, the past history where this worked, on a micro scale, a macro scale, any scale other than the world of theory that this would all work if only…the government spent more…if only this had not happened…if only the states had done this…if only the businesses had believed in Tinkerbell just a little bit more. Show me when Keynesian theory has worked and why. Show me why you have such blind faith in these theories when the people whose business it is to make money and make money for other people, have no such trust in these scenarios: i.e. the investment class that you declare evil because they are unbelievers.

This type of thinking by the existing congress, existing administration, existing elite economic theorists who write for the New York Times maintains, we just haven’t done enough. So I ask, what is the number, the magic number at which you must declare that maybe, perhaps, this theory is just that, and not actual economic reality or do you have a number at which you would be willing to consider that possibly, real dollars and cents don’t work the way theoretical ones do.

I have to ask; what would those things that one could do in just one day of pure dictatorship be? I don’t know what Tom had in mind but the following are what I might imagine.

1) Imprison all affiliated conservative or right-wing media and the people and corporations who openly support them and Republican or conservative politicians without a trial or lawyers indefinitely.

2) Censor all media except that which exalts the state which may simply involve #1.

3) Transform all churches into hospitals or schools or state offices; and outlaw religion.

4) Mandate abortions for all and require the one child limit from this point forward.

5) Remove excess property from all considered to be unfairly advantaged and improperly politically connected.

6) Monitor all communications and transactions and associations and eliminate all individual rights for the masses.

7) Make Congress and all legislation a mere formality of symbolic nature

8) Suspend actual elections.

9) Impose martial law and dissolve all States into the Federal Government.

10) Bring tanks to tea parties.

Those are a few of the things one could do if one was China for the day that China would do if China was us.

But I assume Tom is a nice guy so, I’d like some clarification; what is the good part of a dictatorship that every socialist utopia is supposed to have and none of them do that Tom wants so desperately that he dreams of it?

And what makes him so sure that those in power, once they had the power to make things happen, whether the banning of plastic bags (which would make taking out the garbage very difficult) or mandating everyone clean up after their dogs, (which would also be very difficult without plastic grocery bags), would be content with 24 hours?

I’m pretty sure once they had a day, they’d want a little more time, a week, a month, a five year plan. You know, just to make sure what they decided would stick. I’m sure Tom wouldn’t object after all, it would be for the greater good.

You forgot a few other things they could do, assuming it’s just for the day.

1) freely seize private property and people’s homes for the building of roads, etc. (but don’t worry they get special interest loans [seems to never work out] and Quonset huts to replace their house)… and you thought eminent domain was bad.

2) Unleash the OFA and their “super-hero karate chops” on the public a la the Red Brigade… Confess!

3) While they’re out there, the OFA and Coffee Party could begin to weed out objectionable movies, TV shows, books, web sites, blogs, newspapers, etc. by imprisoning and torturing the producers/writers/stars/journalists until they denounce their politically heretical stances. Soon we’ll only have cheesy musicals glorifying our precious Revolution… er our Collective Will!

I was wondering about Shahzad’s wife and children. Michelle’s article discusses sham weddings as a path to citizenship but does that necessarily mean that she believed the marriage a sham? I realize she is probably in Dubai and it sure looks like she is a participant here. Still I can’t help but wonder what her side of the story is.

Also Michelle linked Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic who wrote:“This suggests that either he was a long-term sleeper agent (unlikely, for various reasons) or that he became over time immune to the charms of life in America, even Barack Obama’s America. Another unhopeful sign for the future of integration. “
LOL, immune to the charms even of Barack Obama’s America? Was he supposed to be able to charm would-be terrorists into fine upstanding US citizens? Does that come before or after the healing of the planet I wonder.

I think I read in one of the articles that she was back in Pakistan, though she was obviously born here. She had a financial background too, so was educated and had some independence–and they lived together before they got married. It seems that he was radicalized and quit his job, but by then she had two little ones to take care of. I suppose she has relatives in Pakistan who could give her more material support but it does seem odd she wouldn’t choose to stay in the states, so you have to think she was somewhat supportive–though maybe not knowing all his plans.

I just read over at Hot Air that he has been on a travel lookout list since 1999 and the Feds were suspicious of him back in 2004. I would venture a guess none of this was kept secret from her so she had to have known something.